This obligation to choose the lesser ct two evils is not got rid of by describing the mere refusal to act as. "the acceptance of a cross." The obligation to choose is indeed a cross; the refusal to choose, however, in such a hard case is really not the acceptance of a cross, but a derelict tion of duty. I, therefore, entirely dissent from the opinion of the Rev. Leyton Richard: when he so; "There is always an exit from a choice of evils by the woy of the! cross, or its equivalent if only men have sufficient faith to take it."
The will of God may mean a cross, and it often does, but the cross that is really laid upon us ought never to be identified with refusal to do one's duty, even though that duty may mean choice of the lesser of two evils.
For these reasons I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that, while it
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.